A review board established to hear new appeals for asylum seeker claims in Australia has yet to hire a single panel member, sparking concerns about a potential backlog in asylum appeals.
The federal government began permitting asylum seekers in Australia to start applying for temporary protection visas last week, following the passage of controversial legislation in December 2014.
Under the new laws, when a decision by the immigration department is refused, it is automatically sent to the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) for review. The IAA is a statutory body that forms part of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). It is comprised of the principal member of the RRT, a senior reviewer and several other reviewers, and offers a shorter form of review that only considers written submissions, and without a formal hearing.
But Guardian Australia has learned that the IAA has yet to finalise a single appointment. Asylum seekers who have been invited to lodge claims only have 30 days to apply, which means in the event they are refused, the IAA could be expected to hear matters imminently.
A spokesman for the RRT said: “The IAA is headed by the principal member of the RRT and comprises a senior reviewer and a number of reviewers. Recruitment for the senior reviewer is being finalised. Recruitment is under way for a number of reviewers who will be located in Sydney and Melbourne.”
He added: “The IAA will have a dedicated website, iaa.gov.au containing important information for applicants, representatives and other stakeholders on how the IAA will operate. The website will be launched in the near future.”
At this stage in time, the only public details about the process are a series of short fact sheets placed on the immigration department’s website.
Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns said the absence of appointments could cause further backlogs in the processing of asylum seeker claims.
“It’s unfortunately fairly typical of the shambolic way in which both the ALP and the Coalition have dealt with claims from asylum seekers,” he said.
“It’s generally characterised by a whirl of a activity and threats to make sure people comply with the next round of voluminous paperwork, but then you get to a bottleneck where they haven’t made the right appointments, and this seems like another example of that.
“There’s been a continual backlog because both sides of politics have refused to ensure asylum seekers are dealt with fairly, but particularly in relation to the rapid movement of their cases through the system.”
When the RRT advertised for a senior reviewer, it also did not outline that prospective employees would need to have legal qualifications or any expertise in refugee law.
Instead, the job advertisement said the reviewer needed to be “very effective at managing a caseload to ensure that reviews are conducted quickly and efficiently in accordance with the legislative requirements”.
It continued: “Reviewers also need to have high-level analytical, interpersonal and communication skills, possess a strong sense of fairness, have sound knowledge of administrative law, exercise good judgment and be able to make and write high quality decisions.”
The CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia, Paul Power, said the absence of criteria for expertise in refugee assessment was concerning.
“What it will require are people with a deep knowledge of the refugee determination process and a deep understanding of how the highest level of procedural fairness can be provided to applicants,” he said.
“It’s disturbing the way in which the position has been advertised. It doesn’t make clear that a deep knowledge of the refugee determination process and detailed legal knowledge about notions of procedural fairness [are required]. They should be central attributes of anyone they are seeking.
“One would presume that the reviewers will be dealing with cases in a matter of weeks and one would hope that they would be well prepared for that and that there would be a significant amount of knowledge and understanding to begin assessing cases.”
The review process for asylum seekers under the new regime is particularly controversial because the immigration minister can expressly refuse to allow matters to be sent to the IAA.
Instead, asylum seekers can be excluded from ever seeking a review of their initial decision, leaving their only option a judicial review to the federal court.
Legal groups have warned this new process could risk genuine refugees being deported to their countries of origin.
